DocketNumber: No. 3275-01; No. 3276-01; No. 3277-01
Judges: "Jacobs, Julian I."
Filed Date: 3/29/2004
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*90 Decisions will be entered for Government.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
JACOBS, Judge: Respondent determined deficiencies in petitioners' Federal income tax, additions to tax, and a penalty for 1987, 1988, and 1989 as follows:
Year Deficiency
1987 $ 20,861 $ 15,646 50% of the interest --
2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*91 due on $ 20,861
1988 3,213 -- -- $ 2,410
Docket No. 3276-01
Penalty
Year Deficiency
1989 $ 10,494 $ 7,871
Docket No. 3277-01
Additions to Tax
Year Deficiency
1987 $ 12,005 $ 9,004 50% of the interest --
due on $ 12,005
1988 9,985 -- -- $ 7,489
The issues remaining to be decided are: 2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*92 2. Whether Bradley T. Jacobsen (Mr. Jacobsen) had unreported gross receipts of $ 28,378 in 1987 and $ 29,747 in 1988, computed under the net worth method.
3. Whether Mr. Jacobsen had additional unreported income of $ 6,285 in 1987 and $ 6,309 in 1988, on the basis of Bureau of Labor Statistics figures.
4. Whether Mr. Del Bosque is liable for additions to tax and/or a civil fraud penalty for 1988 and 1989. 2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*93 FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found. The stipulation of facts and the attached exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.
Mr. Del Bosque died on April 5, 2003, after the conclusion of the trial in these cases. When the petitions in these cases were filed, Mr. Del Bosque resided in Roseville, Minnesota, Virginia Ferguson (Ms. Ferguson) resided in Fridley, Minnesota, and Mr. Jacobsen and Donna M. Cleare-Jacobsen (Mrs. Jacobsen) resided in Apple Valley, Minnesota. Hereinafter, references to petitioners are to Messrs. Del Bosque and Jacobsen.
On December 31, 1986, petitioners each owned two snowmobiles -- a 1987 Polaris Indy 600 and a 1987 Polaris Indy Sport. Petitioners each purchased the 1987 Polaris Indy 600s from Metro- North Sports on October 15, 1986, for the base price of $ 4,688; two items identified as "north country" were purchased at the same time for $ 469 each. The record does not disclose when the 1987 Polaris Indy Sports were purchased; however, a receipt from Metro- North Sports shows that, on October 29, 1986, petitioners purchased accessories and parts for two "Indy 600s" and2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*94 two "Sports". Mr. Jacobsen disposed of his Sport in 1988.
In December 1986, Mrs. Jacobsen made a $ 2,000 loan to her employer. This loan was repaid in 1987.
Mrs. Jacobsen had a Chase Manhattan "money market with checks" account (the MMWC account). On December 31, 1986, the balance in that account was $ 8,618.
In 1986, Mrs. Jacobsen received an inheritance of $ 12,518 plus a one-eighth interest in a contract for deed valued at $ 1,966.
On December 31, 1986, Mr. Del Bosque had $ 12,000 in an account with First Bank East. In January 1987, he used funds from that account to open a brokerage account. On January 16, 1987, Mr. Del Bosque purchased 234 shares of Fidelity Growth Fund for $ 3,320. On April 22, 1987, he sold those shares for $ 3,756 and purchased 1 share for $ 16. Mr. Del Bosque reported the $ 436 gain from the sale of the 234 shares on his 1987 return. On January 22, 1988, he sold the remaining share for $ 13. On his 1988 return, he erroneously reported a basis of $ 3,320 in the 1 share and a $ 3,307 long-term capital loss on the sale of the share.
At the end of 1987, Mr. Del Bosque owed $ 3,921 to Larson Quinn Motor Co. He repaid the loan in 1988.
During the years at2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*95 issue, petitioners purchased leather goods (mostly leather jackets) for resale. In both 1987 and 1988, Mr. Jacobsen purchased $ 3,770 of leather goods for resale. Mr. Del Bosque purchased $ 13,298 of leather goods for resale in 1987, $ 3,862 for resale in 1988, and $ 2,375 for resale in 1989. Petitioners did not keep any records of their sales of leather goods.
During the years at issue, petitioners each owned 50 percent of the stock of Top Play, Inc. (Top Play), an S corporation doing business as Twin Star Limousine Service.
In 1987, 1988, and 1989, petitioners were employed by, and received wages from, Top Play. 2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*96 was charged to Mr. Jacobsen's credit card. Top Play paid the credit card company $ 1,300 in 1987 and $ 763 in 1988 for the purchase of the mobile telephone system.
Some of the limousine runs generated cash for which no run sheets were prepared, and petitioners often paid drivers in cash. Petitioners did not maintain accurate records of Top Play's cash receipts and cash payroll. They did not inform Top Play's accountant of the cash receipts and payroll items. As a result, Top Play's 1987 and 1988 income tax returns and financial statements did not reflect those items.
In February of 1990, petitioners sold the assets of the limousine service to Susan Pavlak for approximately $ 350,000. After a few months, Ms. Pavlak compared Top Play's operating performance in 1989 to its performance in 1990, as indicated in the financial records she had reviewed before purchasing the limousine business. She concluded that the limousine business was producing less revenue.
Ms. Pavlak believed that petitioners had misrepresented the profitability of the limousine business on the Top Play income tax returns that she had reviewed and relied upon in purchasing Top Play. On July 8, 1990, she met with petitioners2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*97 and proposed that they repurchase Top Play for $ 340,000. Petitioners did not respond to her proposal. Thereafter, Ms. Pavlak sued petitioners for fraud and misrepresentation with respect to her purchase of Top Play. She received a judgment in the amount of $ 95,000.
Because Ms. Pavlak believed that a portion of Top Play's cash receipts in 1989 had likely been derived from illegal activities, she contacted the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA referred Ms. Pavlak to the Criminal Investigation Division of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
In July of 1990, Tom Fisher, an IRS special agent assigned to the Federal narcotics task force, began investigating petitioners' business activities. Agent Fisher determined that petitioners had unreported income. He believed that narcotics and/or gambling activities were the possible sources for this income.
Agent Fisher reconstructed petitioners' incomes using the net worth method. Agent Fisher chose the net worth method to compute petitioners' incomes because (1) excessive cash had been deposited into Top Play's accounts, (2) petitioners used cash for personal expenditures, and (3) there were no specific items of unreported2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*98 income.
To compute petitioners' incomes, Agent Fisher identified petitioners' assets, liabilities, and expenses. Agent Fisher used information obtained from third parties, searches of petitioners' residences, and Top Play's records. For some items, Agent Fisher used financial statements prepared by petitioners in 1986 and 1987. Agent Fisher determined petitioners' net worths as of December 31, 1986 through 1989. (Reference to petitioners' 1986, 1987, 1988, and 1989 net worths are to their respective net worths on December 31 of the referenced year.) Agent Fisher reconstructed petitioners' incomes by comparing changes in their net worths from one year to the next for the years in issue.
In February 1993, Mr. Del Bosque was arrested for purchasing anabolic steroids. 2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*99 In April 1993, Mr. Del Bosque became ill and was diagnosed with cardiomyopathy. He was hospitalized in a coronary intensive care unit for 9 days.
On June 23, 1993, a five-count criminal information was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (the criminal tax proceeding) naming petitioners codefendants. Counts I, II, and III charged Mr. Del Bosque with tax evasion for 1987, 1988, and 1989 in violation of
Petitioners entered into plea agreements by which they agreed to plead guilty to tax evasion in 1987 as set forth in counts I and IV, and the Government agreed to move for dismissal of counts II, III, and V. Mr. Del Bosque also entered into a plea agreement in his drug case in which he agreed to plead guilty to conspiring to import anabolic steroids.
In the criminal tax proceeding, Mr. Del Bosque acknowledged that his steroid arrest and his illness were contributing factors in his decision to plead guilty to the tax evasion charge and that his medical condition was such that he could not withstand a trial.
Mr. Del Bosque's plea agreement set2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*100 forth the factual basis upon which the agreement was reached. The agreement stated that (1) from January 1, 1987, through December 31, 1989, Mr. Del Bosque worked with Mr. Jacobsen to hide income and evade taxes, (2) in furtherance of his scheme with Mr. Jacobsen, Mr. Del Bosque filed false tax returns for 1987, 1988, and 1989, (3) Mr. Del Bosque omitted substantial income from those returns with the intent to evade taxes, (4) the Government contended that Mr. Del Bosque understated his income for 1987 through 1989 by $ 116,499, and (5) Mr. Del Bosque accepted the Government's calculation of the omitted income.
For purposes of the sentencing guidelines, Mr. Del Bosque stipulated that (1) he understated his taxable income in 1987, 1988, and 1989 by $ 116,499, (2) the corresponding tax loss (calculated at 28 percent) was approximately $ 32,734, and (3) he "employed the same course of conduct and a common plan with respect to the evasion of taxes in tax years 1987, 1988, and 1989, with the relevant conduct * * * consisting of the total tax loss for all three years even though the offense of conviction is for tax year 1987."
Mr. Jacobsen's plea agreement set forth the factual basis upon2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*101 which that agreement was reached. The agreement stated that (1) from January 1, 1987, through December 31, 1988, Mr. Jacobsen worked with Mr. Del Bosque to hide income and evade taxes, (2) in furtherance of his scheme with Mr. Del Bosque, Mr. Jacobsen filed false tax returns for 1987 and 1988, (3) Mr. Jacobsen omitted substantial income from his 1987 and 1988 returns with the intent to evade taxes, (4) the Government contended that Mr. Jacobsen understated his income for 1987 and 1988 by $ 58,125, and (5) Mr. Jacobsen accepted the Government's calculation of the omitted income.
For purposes of the sentencing guidelines, Mr. Jacobsen stipulated that (1) he understated his taxable income in 1987 and 1988 by $ 58,125, (2) the corresponding tax loss (calculated at 28 percent) was approximately $ 16,275, and (3) he "employed the same course of conduct and a common plan with respect to the evasion of taxes in tax years 1987 and 1988, with the relevant conduct * * * consisting of the total tax loss in both years even though the offense of conviction is for tax year 1987."
In their plea agreements, petitioners acknowledged that the IRS was not a party to the agreements and that when determining2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*102 their civil tax liabilities, the IRS was not bound by the stated amounts of omitted income in the criminal tax proceeding.
On December 17, 1993, petitioners were convicted of tax evasion under
Also on December 17, 1993, Mr. Del Bosque was convicted of conspiring to import a substance containing anabolic steroids. He was sentenced to 3 months' imprisonment to be served concurrently with his sentence for tax evasion, 2 years' supervised release, and a $ 50 special assessment for the Crime Victims' Fund.
On December 12, 2000, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to Mr. Del Bosque and Ms. Ferguson for 1987 and 1988 and another notice of deficiency to Mr. Del Bosque for 1989. In those notices of deficiency, respondent determined that Mr. Del Bosque received, but failed to report, gross receipts of $ 67,163 in 1987, $ 16,557 in 1988, and $ 32,779 in 1989, computed as follows:
2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*103 1986 1987 1988 1989
____ ____ ____ ____
Net worth computation:
Assets $ 143,230 $ 208,392 $ 235,941 $ 292,189
Liabilities 71,995 125,564 139,430 142,708
________ ________ ________ ________
Net worth 71,235 82,828 96,511 149,481
Less prior year's net worth 71,235 82,828 96,511
________ ________ ________
Increase in net worth 11,593 13,683 52,970
Adjustments:
Additions:
Nondeductible expenses 75,826 86,751 77,356
Itemized deductions expenditures 12,840 22,007 23,254
Subtractions:
Nonincome items (2,546) 2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*104 (67,090) (63,912)
________ ________ ________
Adjusted gross income 97,713 55,351 89,668
Itemized deductions (12,118) (15,627) (16,545)
Personal exemptions (3,800) (3,900) (2,000)
________ ________ ________
Corrected taxable income 81,795 35,824 71,123
Taxable income reported (14,632) (19,267) (38,344)
________ ________ ________
Gross receipts 67,163 16,557 32,779
The gross receipts adjustments are the same as, and are directly based upon, the net worth computations used in Mr. Del Bosque's criminal tax proceeding.
On December 12, 2000, respondent issued a notice of deficiency to Mr. and Mrs. Jacobsen for 1987 and 1988. In that notice of deficiency, 2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*105 respondent determined that Mr. Jacobsen received, but failed to report, gross receipts of $ 28,378 in 1987 and $ 29,747 in 1988, computed as follows:
1986 1987 1988
____ ____ ____
Net worth computation:
Assets $ 330,569 $ 356,098 $ 441,985
Liabilities 144,741 152,332 159,418
________ ________ ________
Net worth 185,828 203,766 282,567
Less prior year's net worth 185,828 203,766
_______ _______
Increase in net worth 17,938 78,801
Adjustments:
Additions:
Nondeductible expenses 46,965 45,866
Itemized deductions expenditures 2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*106 15,295 18,967
Subtractions:
Nonincome items (2,051) (59,504)
_______ _______
Adjusted gross income 78,147 84,130
Itemized deductions (13,130) (14,857)
Personal exemptions (3,800) (3,900)
_______ _______
Corrected taxable income 61,217 65,373
Taxable income reported (32,839) (35,626)
_______ _______
Gross receipts 28,378 29,747
The gross receipts adjustments are the same as, and are directly based upon, the net worth computations used in Mr. Jacobsen's criminal tax proceeding.
Respondent also increased the Jacobsens' income2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*107 by $ 6,285 in 1987 and $ 6,309 in 1988 using Bureau of Labor Statistics figures. These additional amounts were computed on the basis of 1991 Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, discounted by 10 percent for 1987 and by 7.5 percent for 1988. The figures each year included $ 266 for cigarettes and $ 1,640 for auto repairs.
Mr. Jacobsen does not smoke cigarettes. Mr. Jacobsen purchased a new car each year in issue. Since his cars were always under warranty, Mr. Jacobsen incurred nominal expenses for auto repairs.
OPINION
A taxpayer is required to maintain records sufficient to enable the Commissioner to determine his tax liabilities.
If the Commissioner's determination of tax liability is calculated according to an acceptable procedure, such as the net worth method, the taxpayer has the burden of producing evidence to the contrary.
Under the net worth method, taxable income is computed by reference to the change in the taxpayer's net worth 2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*109 to represent taxable income, provided: (1) The Commissioner establishes the taxpayer's opening net worth with reasonable certainty, and (2) the Commissioner either shows a likely source of unreported income or negates possible nontaxable sources.
In establishing a taxpayer's net worth the Commissioner owes a duty to the taxpayer of approaching the problem fairly and open mindedly.
The taxpayer's opening net worth is of critical importance and must be established with reasonable certainty. "The importance of accuracy in this figure is immediately apparent, as the correctness of the result depends entirely upon the inclusion in this sum of all assets on hand at the outset."
Petitioners assert that respondent's computations of their unreported income under respondent's net worth method are inaccurate because the computations fail to properly account2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*111 for certain specific items. Respondent concedes some of the items that petitioners were able to substantiate with substantial evidence. At the trial of these cases, petitioners and/or their witnesses testified with regard to these items. Respondent offered no witness or evidence to contradict their testimony.
The Court may not arbitrarily discredit or disregard uncontradicted evidence that is competent, relevant, and credible. The Court, however, is not bound to accept improbable, unreasonable, or questionable testimony at face value, even if it is uncontroverted.
In his criminal tax proceeding, Mr. Del Bosque expressly admitted that he omitted substantial income from his 1987, 1988, and 1989 returns with the intent to evade taxes. For purposes of the sentencing guidelines, Mr. Del Bosque stipulated that he understated his taxable income in 1987, 1988, and 1989 by $ 116,499 and that the corresponding tax loss was approximately2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*112 $ 32,734. The Government's computation of Mr. Del Bosque's understated income in the criminal tax proceeding was derived from Agent Fisher's computations using the net worth method.
In his criminal tax proceeding, Mr. Jacobsen expressly admitted that he omitted substantial income from his 1987 and 1988 returns with the intent to evade taxes. For purposes of the sentencing guidelines, Mr. Jacobsen stipulated that he understated his taxable income in 1987 and 1988 by $ 58,125 and that the corresponding tax loss was approximately $ 16,275.
Petitioners' stipulations in their criminal tax proceedings do not collaterally estop them from challenging the specific deficiency amount in this civil proceeding, because "the determination of an exact liability was not essential to the judgment, a prerequisite to the application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel."
1. Net Worth Adjustments
a. Petitioners' Snowmobiles
On December 31, 1986, petitioners each owned two snowmobiles -- each owned a 1987 Polaris Indy 600 and a 1987 Polaris Indy Sport. The 1987 Polaris Indy 600s were purchased from Metro- North Sports on October 15, 1986, for the base price of $ 4,688 each. Further, two items identified as "north country" were purchased at the same time for $ 469 each. Although the record does not disclose when the 1987 Polaris Indy Sports were purchased, a receipt from Metro-North Sports shows that, on October 29, 1986, petitioners purchased accessories2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*114 and parts for two "Indy 600s" and two "Sports". Mr. Jacobsen disposed of his Sport in 1988.
Mr. Del Bosque's 1986 net worth statement includes only his 1987 Polaris Indy 600. The Sport, valued at $ 2,250, is shown as an asset on his 1987 and 1988 net worth statements. In computing Mr. Del Bosque's taxable income under the net worth method, the Sport should be included as an asset in the 1986 net worth statement.
Mr. Jacobsen's 1986, 1987, and 1988 net worth statements include as an asset a snowmobile valued at $ 4,688 (the price of the Indy 600). Although the snowmobile included in Mr. Jacobsen's net worth statement is not specifically identified, the parties appear to agree that it is the Indy 600. Mr. Jacobsen asserts that his 1986 and 1987 net worth statements should include $ 3,000 representing the value of the Sport. He has offered no evidence to substantiate the cost of the Sport. Mr. Del Bosque's Sport is valued at a cost of $ 2,500. We conclude that Mr. Jacobsen's 1986 and 1987 net worth statements should also include $ 2,500 for the Sport. Since Mr. Jacobsen disposed of the Sport in 1988, it was properly omitted from his 1988 net worth statement.
b. Mr. Del Bosque's First2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*115 Bank East Account
Mr. Del Bosque asserts that his 1986 net worth should be increased to reflect $ 12,000 in an account he had at First Bank East. Mr. Del Bosque's financial statement dated September 5, 1986, reflects a savings account at First Bank East with a balance of $ 12,000 at that time. Although Agent Fisher used the financial statement to identify assets included in the 1986 net worth statement, the First Bank East account was not included as an asset in Mr. Del Bosque's 1986 net worth statement. The existence (but not the amount) of the account is evidenced by Form 1099-INT for 1987 issued by First Bank East to "A J Del Bosque itf Wilma Del Bosque" with Mr. Del Bosque's Social Security number shown as the taxpayer identification number. The Form 1099-INT reports that only $ 24.93 of interest was paid on the account in 1987, supporting Mr. Del Bosque's testimony that he withdrew most of the money in that account early in 1987. We believe, and have found, that Mr. Del Bosque used those funds to open a brokerage account in January 1987. We conclude that, in determining the deficiencies in tax, Mr. Del Bosque's 1986 net worth should include $ 12,000 in the First Bank East account.
2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*116 c. Mrs. Jacobsen's Chase Manhattan Money Market
With Checks Account
Mrs. Jacobsen had a Chase Manhattan "money market with checks" account (the MMWC account). On December 31, 1986, there was a balance of $ 8,618 in that account. The account balance was not included as an asset in the Jacobsens' 1986 net worth statement. Respondent concedes that $ 8,618 should be included on that net worth statement.
d. The Jacobsens' Joint Chase Manhattan Bank Money
Market Account
The Jacobsens had a joint money market account at Chase Manhattan Bank. This account was included as an asset valued at $ 37,200 on the Jacobsens' 1986 net worth statement. The $ 37,200 Agent Fisher used as the account balance was based on the amount ($ 37,200) reflected on financial statements the Jacobsens completed in 1986; Agent Fisher did not confirm the account balance as of December 31, 1986, with Chase Manhattan Bank. Mr. Jacobsen contends that the account balance was at least $ 38,200 on December 31, 1986. The statement of the account dated February 11, 1987, reports that the account balance was $ 38,324 as of January 13, 1987. The2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*117 February statement shows that the account was interest bearing. The record does not show the amount of interest paid to the account between January 1 and 13, 1986. We conclude, however, that the balance in the account as of December 31, 1986, was approximately $ 38,000. Therefore, the Jacobsens' 1986 net worth should be increased by $ 800.
e. Mrs. Jacobsen's Loan to Her Employer
In December 1986, Mrs. Jacobsen made a $ 2,000 loan to her employer. This loan was repaid in 1987. The receivable from Mrs. Jacobsen's employer was not included as an asset on December 31, 1986. Respondent concedes that the $ 2,000 receivable from Mrs. Jacobsen's employer should be included as an asset on the Jacobsens' 1986 net worth statement.
f. Mrs. Jacobsen's Inheritance
In 1986, Mrs. Jacobsen received an inheritance of $ 12,518 plus a one-eighth interest in a contract for deed valued at $ 1,966. The inheritance was not reflected as an asset on the net worth calculations as of December 31, 1986. Mrs. Jacobsen testified that she held the distribution check into 1987 because she could not decide how to spend or invest the funds. She further testified that after she cashed the check in 1987 she kept the2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*118 cash and used it to pay expenses in 1987 and 1988. Mr. Jacobsen did not produce the canceled check or call the administrator who issued the check on behalf of the estate to confirm when the check was cashed. Furthermore, the inheritance is not reflected on the financial statements the Jacobsens completed in 1986. We conclude that the Jacobsens' 1986 net worth should not include Mrs. Jacobsen's inheritance.
g. Mr. Del Bosque's Shares of Fidelity Growth
Fund
On January 16, 1987, Mr. Del Bosque purchased 234 shares of Fidelity Growth Fund for $ 3,320. On April 22, 1987, he sold those shares for $ 3,756 and purchased 1 share for $ 16. On January 22, 1988, he sold the remaining share for $ 13. The original 234 shares with a value of $ 3,320 (rather than the 1 share with a value of $ 16) were shown as an asset in Mr. Del Bosque's 1987 net worth calculation.
Respondent agrees that Mr. Del Bosque's 1987 net worth should include only 1 share of Fidelity Growth Fund with a value of $ 16. Therefore, the assets included in the 1987 net worth statement should be reduced by $ 3,304 ($ 3,320 -$ 16).
h. Mr. Del Bosque's2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*119 Debt to Larson Quinn Motor
Co.
At the end of 1987, Mr. Del Bosque owed $ 3,921 to Larson Quinn Motor Co. The loan was repaid in 1988. The loan was not included as a liability in the 1987 net worth computation but was included as a liability in the 1988 net worth computation. Respondent concedes that the $ 3,921 debt should be shown as a liability on the 1987 net worth statement and excluded from the 1988 net worth statement.
2. Nondeductible Personal Expenses
a. Petitioners' Leather Goods Purchases
In 1987 and 1988, Mr. Jacobsen purchased $ 3,770 of leather goods for resale each year. Mr. Del Bosque purchased $ 13,298 of leather goods for resale in 1987, $ 3,862 for resale in 1988, and $ 2,375 for resale in 1989. Respondent treated amounts paid by petitioners to North Beach Leathers as nondeductible personal expenses. These were not personal expenditures but rather expenditures for leather goods purchased and resold. Although petitioners did not maintain any records of their purchases, a few receipts were obtained from North Beach Leathers. The receipts show that within a month petitioners purchased numerous jackets in various sizes; the number of jackets2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*120 purchased supports petitioners' assertions that the jackets were not for personal use but rather for resale. Petitioners' leather goods sales activities are further confirmed by the testimony of two individuals to whom petitioners sold leather goods during the years at issue.
On the basis of our observation of petitioners' witnesses at trial, including our observation of their demeanor, we found petitioners' witnesses to be credible and earnest. Their testimony was direct, plausible, and uncontroverted. It was not evasive, conclusory, or inconsistent. We are satisfied that their testimony was honest.
We concluded that, in computing petitioners' taxable income each year, the cost of the leather goods purchased each year should be deducted from petitioners' gross receipts as cost of goods sold.
b. Mr. Jacobsen's Clothing Purchases
Mr. Jacobsen claims that he often paid for clothing for the limousine drivers. Specifically, he claims that he paid $ 349 in 1987 to Jerry Leonard, a big and tall men's store, $ 349 in 1987 and $ 771 in 1988 to Daytons department store, and $ 1,950 in 1988 to Merles department store. Respondent treated these items as Mr. Jacobsen's personal expenses in2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*121 computing his income.
Mr. Jacobsen did not call any of the limousine drivers to confirm that he made such purchases. He offered no sales receipts or other documentary evidence. We conclude that the items were properly treated as nondeductible personal expenses.
c. Mr. Jacobsen's Purchase of a Mobile Telephone
System
In 1987, Top Play purchased a mobile telephone system for $ 1,797. Payment for the system was charged to Mr. Jacobsen's credit card. Top Play paid the credit card company $ 1,300 in 1987 and $ 763 in 1988 for the purchase of the mobile telephone system. Agent Fisher treated this purchase as a nondeductible personal expenditure. Respondent concedes that the item is not a nondeductible personal expense.
Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures, respondent increased Mr. Jacobsen's income by $ 6,285 in 1987 and $ 6,309 in 1988. The figures each year included $ 266 for cigarettes. Mr. Jacobsen does not smoke, and respondent concedes that the increase based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures should not include the amounts for cigarettes.
The figures also included $ 1,640 each2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*122 year for auto repairs. Mr. Jacobsen purchased a new car every year. Since his cars were always under warranty, Mr. Jacobsen incurred only nominal auto repair expenses. Although, as respondent points out, some repairs may not be covered by a warranty, we do not believe that it was appropriate to include $ 1,640 for auto repairs for a new car on the basis of the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures. We conclude that the increase based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics figures should not include amounts for auto repair expenses.
1. Mr. Del Bosque's Unreported Income
In accordance with the above discussion, Mr. Del Bosque's unreported gross receipts for 1987, 1988, and 1989 are as follows:
1986 1987 1988 1989
____ ____ ____ ____
Net worth computation:
Assets
Agent Fisher's computations $ 143,230 $ 208,392 $ 235,941 $ 292,189
Snowmobile 2,250 -- -- --
First Bank East 12,0002004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*123 -- -- --
Fidelity Growth Fund -- (3,304) -- --
________ ________ ________ ________
Total assets 157,480 205,088 235,941 292,189
Liabilities 71,995 125,564 139,430 142,708
Larson Quinn Motor Co. -- 3,921 (3,921) --
________ ________ ________ ________
Total liabilities 71,995 129,485 135,509 142,708
Net worth 85,485 75,603 100,432 149,481
Less prior year's net worth 85,485 75,603 100,432
Increase in net worth (9,882) 24,829 49,049
Adjustments:
Additions:
Nondeductible expenses
Agent Fisher's computations 75,826 86,751 77,356
Cost of leather goods (13,298) (3,862) (2,375)
2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*124 Itemized deductions expenditures 12,840 22,007 23,254
Subtractions:
Nonincome items (2,546) (67,090) (63,912)
________ ________ ________
Adjusted gross income 62,940 62,635 83,372
Itemized deductions (12,118) (15,627) (16,545)
Personal exemptions (3,800) (3,900) (2,000)
________ ________ ________
Corrected taxable income 47,022 43,108 64,827
Taxable income reported (14,632) (19,267) (38,344)
________ ________ ________
Unreported gross receipts 32,390 23,841 26,483
On April 22, 1987, Mr. Del Bosque purchased 1 share of Fidelity Growth Fund for $ 16. On January 22, 1988, he sold the share for $ 13. On his 19882004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*125 return, he erroneously reported a basis of $ 3,320 in the 1 share and a $ 3,307 long-term capital loss on the sale of the share in that year. Mr. Del Bosque's 1988 long-term capital loss on the sale of that share should be reduced to $ 3.
2. Mr. Jacobsen's Unreported Income
Mr. Jacobsen's unreported gross receipts for 1987 and 1988 are as follows:
1986 1987 1988
____ ____ ____
Net worth computation:
Assets
Agent Fisher's computations $ 330,569 $ 356,098 $ 441,985
Snowmobile 2,500 2,500 --
MMWC account 8,618 -- --
Joint money market account 800 -- --
Loan receivable 2,000 -- --
________ ________ ________
Total assets 344,487 358,598 441,985
Liabilities 144,741 152,332 159,418
2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*126 ________ ________ ________
Net worth 199,746 206,266 282,567
Less prior year's net worth 199,746 206,266
________ ________
Increase (decrease) in net worth 6,520 76,301
Additions:
Nondeductible expenses
Agent Fisher's computations 46,965 45,866
Cost of leather goods (3,770) (3,770)
Mobile phone (1,300) (763)
Itemized deductions expenditures 15,295 18,967
Subtractions:
Nonincome items (2,051) (59,504)
________ ________
Adjusted gross income 61,659 77,097
Itemized deductions (13,130) (14,857)
Personal exemptions (3,800) (3,900)
2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*127 ________ ________
Corrected taxable income 44,729 58,340
Taxable income reported (32,839) (35,626)
________ ________
Gross receipts 11,890 22,714
Bureau of Labor statistics adjustment:
Agent Fisher's computations 6,285 6,309
Cigarettes (266) (266)
Car repairs (1,640) (1,640)
________ ________
Correct adjustment 4,379 4,403
Total unreported gross receipts 16,269 27,117
Citing
In Livingston, we first found the 1989 opening net worth of zero suspect given that the taxpayer was self-employed in that year. Further, the Commissioner's 1989 net worth computation did not account for the wife's income, which was available to fund the taxpayers' joint expenditures; the computation effectively treated all asset purchases and other joint expenditures as being financed solely by the husband's unreported income. As a result of those errors, we held that the Commissioner's 1989 net worth computation was so unreliable as to negate any presumption of correctness.
The types of errors in the Commissioner's 1989 net worth computation in Livingston are not present in the case at hand. Respondent's net worth computations of unreported income reflect the combined incomes of petitioners and their wives. The opening and closing net worths include joint and separate property, and respondent's computations of unreported income take into account the wives' separate income.
Respondent's net worth computations of petitioners' unreported income were not made on the basis of a "strong underlying element2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*129 of guesswork".
We have considered all of petitioners' arguments, and to the extent not specifically addressed, we find them unpersuasive.
Respondent determined that petitioners are liable for the additions to tax for fraud under
Respondent bears the burden of proving the applicability of the civil fraud additions to tax and penalty by clear and convincing evidence.
An underpayment will exist where unreported gross receipts are not exceeded by costs of goods sold and deductible expenses. In establishing the requisite2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*131 underpayment, the Commissioner may not simply rely on the taxpayer's failure to prove error in the deficiency determination.
Here, respondent used the net worth method of proving income, which the Supreme Court has approved as a reasonable and logical means of reconstructing unreported income in a fraud case.
The Commissioner may prove that the taxpayer underpaid tax by proving that the taxpayer had a likely source of the unreported income,
Respondent must prove by clear and convincing evidence that petitioners had a fraudulent intent.
Courts have identified numerous factors, sometimes referred to as indicia or badges of fraud, which may be persuasive circumstantial evidence of fraud. See, e.g.,
The following badges of fraud are present in this case: (1) Substantially understating2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*135 income over a period of years,(2) maintaining inadequate records; (3) dealing in cash; (4) providing incomplete or misleading information to petitioners' tax preparer, (5) filing false returns, (6) engaging in a pattern of behavior which indicates an intent to mislead, (7) dishonesty in a business transaction.
1. Failure To Report Substantial Amounts of Income
"Although2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*136 mere understatement of income alone is not sufficient to prove fraud, the consistent and substantial understatement of income is, by itself, strong evidence of fraud."
Mr. Del Bosque failed to report a large portion of his income for 1987, 1988, and 1989, and Mr. Jacobsen failed to report a large portion of his income for 1987 and 1988. Petitioners assert that the income was gambling winnings. Petitioners provided no explanation for underreporting that income regardless of the source. A consistent pattern of underreporting large amounts of income over a period of years is substantial evidence bearing upon an intent to defraud, particularly where the reason for such understatement is not satisfactorily explained or shown to be due to innocent mistake.
2. Failure To Keep Adequate Books and Records
Taxpayers are required to maintain books and records sufficient to show their tax liabilities. See
Petitioners did not maintain adequate books and records regarding the operation of the limousine service, their sales of leather goods, or their gambling winnings. Because petitioners' records for the years in issue are insufficient to show the gross receipts from the limousine service, sales of leather goods, or gambling winnings, the records are insufficient to accurately compute petitioners' tax liabilities for the years in issue. Their failure to maintain adequate books and records is indicative of fraud. See
3. Dealing in Cash
Petitioners often failed to keep records of cash income from limousine runs and cash payments made to limousine drivers. Dealings in cash may indicate fraud and heighten2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*138 the negative effect of inadequate record keeping.
4. Providing Incomplete or Misleading Information to Tax
Preparer
Petitioners did not inform their return preparer of their cash items, their income from the sale of leather goods, or their gambling winnings. These facts also evidence fraud. See
5. Filing False Returns
Filing a false income tax return may be evidence that the taxpayer fraudulently intended to evade taxes.
6. Pattern of Behavior Which Indicates Intent to
Mislead
A taxpayer's course of conduct or a pattern of conduct may establish, by inference, an intent to conceal or mislead.
Mr. Del Bosque admitted in his plea agreement in his criminal tax proceeding that he schemed with Mr. Jacobsen to hide income and evade taxes, filed false tax returns for 1987, 1988, and 1989 in furtherance of that scheme, and omitted substantial income from those returns with the intent to evade taxes. Mr. Jacobsen admitted in his plea agreement in his criminal tax proceeding that he schemed with Mr. Del Bosque to hide income and evade taxes, filed false tax returns for 1987 and 1988 in furtherance of that scheme, and omitted substantial income from those returns with2004 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 90">*140 the intent to evade taxes.
For purposes of the sentencing guidelines, Mr. Del Bosque stipulated that he "employed the same course of conduct and a common plan with respect to the evasion of taxes in tax years 1987, 1988, and 1989", and Mr. Jacobsen stipulated that he "employed the same course of conduct and a common plan with respect to the evasion of taxes in tax years 1987 and 1988". They reiterated the substance of those admissions in testimony supporting their guilty pleas.
Mr. Del Bosques's admissions are strong evidence that he intended to evade taxes he knew to be owing in 1988 and 1989. Mr. Jacobsen's admissions are strong evidence that he intended to evade taxes he knew to be owing in 1988.
7. Dishonesty in Business Transactions
A taxpayer's dishonesty in business transactions or willingness to defraud others may indicate a willingness to defraud the
We find that the circumstances of this case, taken as a whole, clearly and convincingly establish that petitioners acted with the requisite fraudulent intent, and that their underpayments of tax for 1988 and Mr. Del Bosque's underpayment of tax for 1989 are due to fraud. Accordingly, we sustain respondent's determination that petitioners are liable for the additions to tax for fraud under
To reflect the above,
Decisions will be entered under
1. Cases of the following petitioners are consolidated herewith: Estate of Armand J. Del Bosque, Deceased, Lori Del Bosque, Special Administrator, docket No. 3276-01; Bradley T. Jacobsen and Donna M. Cleare-Jacobsen, docket No. 3277-01.↩
2. All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. Amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.↩
3. The parties have stipulated that (1) Bradley T. Jacobsen (Mr. Jacobsen) and Donna M. Cleare-Jacobsen (Mrs. Jacobsen) are entitled to deduct in 1987 the $ 2,000 contribution to an IRA that respondent disallowed, (2) Virginia Ferguson is entitled to relief under
4. Mr. Del Bosque's estate concedes that he is liable for the addition to tax for fraud for 1987.↩
5. Mr. Jacobsen concedes that he is liable for the addition to tax for fraud for 1987.↩
6. In 1988, Ms. Ferguson was employed by, and received wages from, Gantos, Inc. In 1987, Mrs. Jacobsen was employed by, and received wages from, Gray Display and Chinook, Inc.↩
7. Mr. Del Bosque competed in body building competitions and had held two Mr. Minnesota titles. To that end he used anabolic steroids.↩
8. Assets are generally listed at their cost rather than at their current market value.
9. Petitioners concede that their convictions of criminal tax evasion for 1987 under
10. Petitioners asserted in their criminal tax proceedings and at the trial in these cases that the omitted income was from gambling. None of the parties has offered any further description or explanation of petitioners' gambling activities.↩
Boles Trucking, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant v. United ... ( 1996 )
Marcus v. Commissioner ( 1978 )
Brooks v. Commissioner ( 1984 )
Wright v. Commissioner ( 1985 )
Colestock v. Commissioner ( 1994 )
United States v. Johnson ( 1943 )
Thomas W. Banks v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1963 )
Samuel H. Klassie v. United States ( 1961 )
Mary Ruark v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1971 )
sam-simon-v-commissioner-of-internal-revenue-albert-simon-v-commissioner ( 1957 )
Stephen B. Scallen and Chacke Y. Scallen v. Commissioner of ... ( 1989 )
Clayton M. Korecky, Jr. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue ( 1986 )
Leo Elwert v. United States ( 1956 )
Guilio J. Conti and Edith Conti v. Commissioner of Internal ... ( 1994 )
Herbert C. Camien and Melita B. Howard, Formerly Melita B. ... ( 1970 )
Joseph R. Dileo, Mary A. Dileo, Walter E. Mycek, Jr., ... ( 1992 )